Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The statement of priority in the specification, and claim to priority on the application data sheet appears to be incomplete. While applicant claims priority to non-provisional application 15/955,680 filed April 17, 2018, further claim to priority of provisional application 62/486,409 filed April 17, 2017 appears to have been omitted.
Applicant can correct their claim to priority with an amended application data sheet and amended specification paragraph [0001].
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: line 11, it appears “at least one fork coupled” should be replaced with “the fork is coupled”.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 repeats a limitation already recited in claim 1, lines 7-8.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 14 does not match the preamble of claim 9 from which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayman (US 6,405,830) in view of Bartnicki (US 5,067,589).
Hayman discloses:
1. An adjustable toe board (50, figure 1a), comprising:
an adjustable toe board (50) comprising an outer board (55, figure 3E) and an inner board (56, figure 3B), wherein the inner board (56) is movable in relation to the outer board (55) between a substantially retracted position to a substantially extended position, and is movable to various positions therebetween (telescoping construction);
a locking mechanism (57, 59, 60; figures 3B,3C,3E,3F) comprising a latching member (57,59) coupled to the inner board (figures 3B,3C) and a corresponding locking member (60) coupled to the outer board (figure 3E,3F); and
wherein the latching member having a protrusion (57), and the locking member (60) having an aperture extending through at least a portion thereof (figure 3F), such that when the outer board (55) and inner board (56) are coupled in the substantially retracted position, the latching member protrusion (57) extends at least partially within the locking member aperture (60).
While Hayman discloses the locking mechanism components of protrusion and aperture, they are in reverse order, with the protrusion on the inner board and aperture on the outer board.
However, Bartnicki teaches a locking mechanism (18, figure 5) comprising a latching member (110, figure 5) coupled to the outer board (12, figure 1) and a corresponding locking member (apertures 128) coupled to the inner board (figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the locking mechanism of Hayman with the latching member coupled to the outer board, and locking member coupled to the inner board, as taught by Bartnicki, so that the user may have access to the locking mechanism no matter how extended or retracted the boards are, allowing for greater versatility and security in holding the boards in a desired position.
Bartnicki additionally teaches:
2. The adjustable toe board of claim 1, further comprising: a limit hook (90, 92) connected to the inner board (14, 16) and a corresponding limit plate (42, 76) connected to the outer board (figure 1), wherein the limit hook and limit plate couple when the inner board and outer board are in their substantially extended position in relation to each other (col. 3, lines 53-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide limit hook cemented plates on the adjustable toe board of Hayman as taught by Bartnicki, so as to prevent accidental disengagement of the telescoping boards.
Hayman further discloses:
3. The adjustable toe board of claim 1, further comprising:
the outer toe board (55) having an outer board first side (left end of board) and an outer board second side (right end of board);
the outer toe board (55) having an outer board upper edge (edge of channel 58 of 55) extending between the outer board first side (left end of board) and the outer board second side (right end of board) along the length of the upper perimeter of the outer toe board (figure 3D);
the outer toe board (55) having an outer board outer edge (edge of channel 57 of 55) extending between the outer board first side and the outer board second side along the length of the lower perimeter of the outer toe board (figure 3D);
the outer board upper edge having a retaining channel (58 of 55) extending along at least a portion of the upper edge of the outer toe board (figure 3D);
the outer board outer edge having a retaining channel (57) extending along at least a portion of the outer edge of the outer toe board (figure 3D);
the inner toe board (56) having an inner board first side (left end of board) and an inner board second side (right end of board);
the inner toe board having an inner board upper edge (edge of channel 58 of 56, figure 3A) extending between the inner board first side and the inner board second side along the length of the upper perimeter of the inner toe board (figure 3A);
the inner toe board having an inner board outer edge (edge of channel 57 of 56) extending between the inner board first side and the inner board second side along the length of the lower perimeter of the inner toe board (figure 3A); and
wherein at least a portion of the upper edge of the inner toe board (edge of 58 of 56) extends within at least a portion of the upper edge retaining channel of the outer toe board (58 of 55), and wherein at least a portion of the outer edge of the inner toe board (edge of 57 of 56) extends within at least a portion of the outer edge retaining channel of the outer toe board (57 of 55).
4. The adjustable toe board of claim 3, further comprising:
wherein the outer toe board (55) is an elongated generally C-shaped member (figure 3D) having an outer board upright portion (vertical portion of board 55) and an outer board base portion (horizontal portion of channel 57) extending from the outer board upright portion (figure 3D);
wherein the outer edge of the outer toe board runs the length of the outer perimeter of the outer board base portion that is extending away from the outer board upright portion (edge along length of channel 57 of 55);
wherein the inner toe board (56) is an elongated generally C-shape member (figure 3A) having an inner board upright portion (vertical portion of board 56) and an inner board base portion (horizontal portion of channel 57 of 56) extending from the inner board upright portion (figure 3A); and
wherein the outer edge of the inner toe board runs the length of the outer perimeter of the inner board base portion that is extending away from the inner board upright portion (edge along length of channel 57 of 56).
While Hayman discloses the channels to be C-shaped, rather than L-shaped, it is noted that such a difference is merely a change in shape and matter of design choice. Having a base member (horizontal portion channels 57) extends further outward the vertical portion then the upper channel 58 will result in a generally L-shaped number (see example below), with the obvious benefit of having a more stable supporting base for the elongate telescoping member. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV. B. Changes in Shape.
PNG
media_image2.png
210
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayman (US 6,405,830) in view of Ono (JP 2001227156).
Hayman discloses:
9. An adjustable toe board (50, figure 1a), comprising:
an adjustable toe board (50) comprising an inner toe board (56, figure 3B) and an outer toe board (55, figure 3E);
the inner toe board (56) movable in relation to the outer toe board (55) between a substantially retracted position to a substantially extended position, including various positions therebetween (telescoping construction of 55, 56);
the inner toe board (56) having an inner board first side (let end of board 56) and an inner board second side (right end of board 56);
the outer toe board having an outer board first side (left end of board 55) and an outer board second side (right end of board 55).
Hayman does not disclose a connecting member anchor coupled to a portion of the adjustable toe board; or a connecting member coupled to the connecting member anchor wherein the connecting member is moveable along at least a portion of the connecting member anchor.
However, Ono, teaches: a connecting member anchor (10, 17; figure 4) coupled to a portion of the toe board (3, figure 4); and
a connecting member (11, figure 4) coupled to the connecting member anchor (10, 17, figure 4) wherein the connecting member (11) is moveable along at least a portion of the connecting member anchor (via compression and release of disc spring 16 that allows for vertical adjustment and turning of 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adjustable toe board of Hayman with a connecting member anchor and connecting member as taught by Ono, for securing the toe board to a supporting structure, at positions along the length thereof, to increase stability and security of the toe board system.
Re: claims 10 and 12: Ono further teaches:
10. The adjustable toe board of claim 9, further comprising: the connecting member anchor (10, 17) comprising a shaft (17); the connecting member anchor (10, 17) being attached to the adjustable toe board (figure 4); and the connecting member (11) being coupled to the connecting member anchor along at least a portion of the shaft (11 passes through 17) such that the connecting member is moveable along at least a portion of the shaft of the connecting member anchor (via compression and release of disc spring 16 that allows for vertical adjustment and turning of 11) while the connecting member anchor is attached to the adjustable toe board (figure 4).
12. The adjustable toe board of claim 10, further comprising: the shaft (17) of the connecting member anchor (10, 17) extending between two attachment points (10a, 10b) on the connecting member anchor (figure 4); and the connecting member anchor being attached to the adjustable toe board at the attachment points (figure 4) such that at least a portion of the shaft (17) is not resting on the surface of the adjustable toe board (due to backplate of 10 between 17 and 3a).
Re: claim 14, Hayman discloses: The locking mechanism (57,59,60; figure 3) for use with an adjustable toe board of claim 9, further comprising: the latching member comprising a spring lock (spring flange of 57, figure 3B) having a locking pin (protrusion of 57, figure 3B) extending therefrom (figure 3B) and a release (spacing between flange and upper part of channel) proximate the locking pin (figure 3B); an aperture (59) extending through the inner toe board (56, figure 3B) proximate the inner board first side (figure 3B); and wherein the locking pin (protrusion of 57) extends through the inner toe board aperture (59) when the adjustable toe board is in a substantially retracted position, wherein in this position the locking pin (protrusion of 57) prevents lateral movement between the inner toe board and the outer toe board (by extension through 60 in 55).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayman (US 6,405,830) in view of Lubinski (US 5,868,223).
Hayman discloses:
15. An adjustable toe board (50, figure 1A) comprising:
an adjustable toe board (50: 55, 56, figure 3); and
a connecting member (51) coupled to the adjustable toe board (figure 1A).
Hayman does not disclose a wedge pin for use with the connecting member, the wedge pin generally having four sides: a first side and an opposing second side, and a longitudinally extending interior side that extends between the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin and an opposing longitudinally extending exterior side that extends between the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin; the longitudinally extending interior side having an interior side protrusion extending along at least a portion of the surface thereof, the interior side protrusion having a bump intermediate the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin with the interior side protrusion gradually tapering inward from the bump towards the second side of the wedge pin; and the longitudinally extending exterior side having a corresponding exterior side protrusion that extends along at least a portion of the longitudinally extending exterior side, wherein the exterior side protrusion is a larger protrusion in relation to the interior side protrusion.
However, Lubinski teaches:
a wedge pin (20, fig 2) for use with the connecting member (18, fig 2), the wedge pin (20) generally having four sides (fig 2): a first side (top end) and an opposing second side (bottom end), and a longitudinally extending interior side (left-hand side fig 2) that extends between the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin (fig 2) and an opposing longitudinally extending exterior side (right hand side, fig 2) that extends between the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin (fig 2);
the longitudinally extending interior side (left hand side of 20, fig 2) having an interior side protrusion (ram extending between 70 and 66, fig 2) extending along at least a portion of the surface thereof, the interior side protrusion having a bump (peak of ramp) intermediate the first side of the wedge pin and the second side of the wedge pin (fig 2) with the interior side protrusion (ramp surface) gradually tapering inward from the bump (peak) towards the second side (bottom of 20) of the wedge pin (fig 2); and
the longitudinally extending exterior side (right hand side of 20, fig 2) having a corresponding exterior side protrusion (ramp that extends from 36 down towards bottom end of 20) that extends along at least a portion of the longitudinally extending exterior side (fig 2), wherein the exterior side protrusion is a larger (longer) protrusion in relation to the interior side protrusion (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adjustable toe board of Hayman with the connecting member and wedge pin as taught by Lubinski, for easily attaching the adjustable toe board the well-known and often used rosette connections systems on scaffolding posts, allowing the toe board to be used on a greater number of scaffolding systems.
Hayman further disclose:
17. The adjustable toe board of claim 15, further comprising:
the adjustable toe board (50) having an inner toe board (56) and an outer toe board (55), wherein the inner toe board (56) is movable in relation to the outer toe board (55) between a substantially retracted position and a substantially extended position, including various positions therebetween (telescoping construction of 55, 56);
the inner toe board (56) having an inner toe board first side (left end) and an inner toe board second side (right end);
the outer toe board (55) having an outer toe board first side (left) and an outer toe board second side (right end); and
the connecting member (51) being coupled proximate the inner toe board first side (left end), and a second connecting member being coupled proximate the outer toe board second side (right end), wherein the outer toe board second side is distal the inner toe board first side (right vs left ends; 50 is disclosed as having two clip ends 51, one at each end).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,859,397.
A table showing the anticipation of the claims is below.
Application Claims
Are anticipated by
Patent claims
1, 5
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
8
5
6
6
7
7,8
9,10,12
10
11
11
13
12,13
14
14
15,17,20
15
16
16
18
17
19
18
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights